Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moffett and the Peshitta
#1
Paul, knowledgeable Peshitta historians et al,
I've been reading Moffett's "Christianity in Asia,volume 1" and notice that Moffett's position towards the Peshitta seems to be the usual Western view towards Greek primacy. That is, he takes the road that the Aramaic/Syriac scriptures are translations from Greek texts. Now, Moffett has obviously done quite a bit of research in producing his work, which heretofore has been a great read. My question then is where is/are the COE's first and earliest self-declaration(s) that Aramaic is the original language of the New Covenant scriptures? Moffett apparently did not come across such historical documents, or at least any which significantly altered his view towards Greek primacy.

As always, I sincerely appreiciate everyone's time in answering my questions. I am sure there will be others questions that come from my reading of his book. Like I said, it has been interesting to say the least.

Shlama
Reply
#2
Hi Brantana,

Isn't Moffett's book great? We can forgive his Greek primacy, he did a great work.

The answer to your question is rather complicated, but the bottom line is there are no historical quotes from any patristic writers, nor are there any official statements from any Synod/Council of the Church of the East that declare the New Testament's original language to be Aramaic.

By the same token, none of the above criteria exist for the canon of the NT either, defining the current (and historic) 22-book list.

If you read Asahel Grant's book in the "Articles" section (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/grant.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/grant.pdf</a><!-- m -->), you will be amazed when you get to the part where he states that in discussing the NT with the Patriarch of the CoE himself, Grant came to realize that the Church of the East at the time (this was the 1800s) was not even aware of the existence of the "Western Five" books (i.e., Revelation, Jude, etc).

In short: the CoE was not aware that a school of thought existed holding that the NT was written in a language other than that spoken by our Lord Himself.

Therefore the historic silence.

Until we got here.

Hope that makes sense.

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#3
Thanks Paul. Moffett's book has indeed been a great read so far, well written and well researched. How about approaching my question from another angle... Are there any very early COE source documents or other early Aramaic documents that unquestionably quote directly from the Peshitta? I figure that early believers using direct Peshitta wording, in/from multiple sources, would of course provide the same degree of certainty and documentation as early affirmation by the COE.

Any documentation on this route?

Thanks!
Reply
#4
Further along this line, Moffett offers a few discussions regarding the Peshitta and even the early COE's usage of scripture. For instance, on page 125 of Moffett's book he gets into discussion about Aphrahat the "Persian Sage." Writing about Aphrahat's Demonstrations (written between 336 and 345), Moffett states:
Quote:In the Gospels, he usues Tatian's Diatessaron, significantly including the disputed last twelve verses of Mark which contrain the Great Commission. (Moffett, pp 129)

The Diatessaron was of course translated and pieced together by Tatian circa 170. Moffett then states:
Quote:For the rest of the New Testament he generally follows the canon of the Syriac Peshitta... (Moffett, pp 129)

This follows his earlier comments that:
Quote:The Synod of Hippo Regius in 393 and of the Synod of Carthage in 397 made official what most Western churches by then had already accepted. But in the East, where the churches outside the Roman Empire were imperceptibly beginning to separate from the West, the process took longer. (Moffett, pp 73)

Moffett further details, not that the Peshitta was compiled far after Aphrahat, but that it was compiled into its finalized, authorized form "sometime before the schism of 431":
Quote:For two hundred years the Syrian and Persian churches had recognized Tatian's harmony of the Gospels as the preferred version, but early in the fifth century, a number of bishops ... opposed the use of the Diatessaron and favored a new, authorized Syriac New Testament, based on the old syriac "Separate Gospels" (the "Mepharreshe") of which different versions were in circulation. (Moffett, pp 187)

Like I said, I'm still not complete with his book but it has stirred some questions I would like addressed by the more knowledgeable. Particularly since Aphrahat has been used previously to support an early date for the Peshitta - I am not debating this, but it of course conflicts with Moffett's research. Additionally, Moffett makes some interesting claims regarding the Diatesseron's early use by the COE.

Thank you so much for the time and insight you all may share.
Reply
#5
brantana Wrote:Thanks Paul. Moffett's book has indeed been a great read so far, well written and well researched. How about approaching my question from another angle... Are there any very early COE source documents or other early Aramaic documents that unquestionably quote directly from the Peshitta? I figure that early believers using direct Peshitta wording, in/from multiple sources, would of course provide the same degree of certainty and documentation as early affirmation by the COE.

Any documentation on this route?

Thanks!

Hi Brantana,

Actually yes, Mar Aphrahat quoted from the Peshitta extensively - there are several posts on this forum regarding this topic you may find helpful.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=237">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=237</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=204">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=204</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=737">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=737</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=400">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=400</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=298">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=298</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=297">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=297</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=277">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=277</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=273">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=273</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=231">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=231</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=228">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=228</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=225">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=225</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=224">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=224</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=223">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=223</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=194">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=194</a><!-- l -->

In regards to the Diatesseron, the version was made from the 4 Gospels of the Peshitta version. The CoE used it as a popular reference work until at least the 11th century, and even made Arabic translations from it. The following post should be of help to you:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=401">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=401</a><!-- l -->

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#6
Another thing to keep in mind, Brantana, Moffett is a fantastic historian and writer. His area of expertise isn't linguistics. I don't believe he gave much thought to anything other than the standard history of textual criticism as taught in the West.

Given the historic silence of the CoE on the topic, I don't believe he wanted to bring an unnecessary topic up. You sort of stick your neck out in these parts if you adhere to anything other than what is current dogma in the circles of academia.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)